#as interchangeable with them too apparently

[timeisacephalopod]

Part of being Canadian is how similar we are to the US, and honestly not a single person on earth I think could genuinely pin point the difference between Canadian and American culture but the average Canadian. Americans assume we're the same as them (we aren't), even a bunch of Canadians think we're Americans, especially around voting seasons, and about half our cultural identity is "we're Not American!" but there are some cultural differences and if we all spoke French equally we could have had a language distinction but nooooo. Despite not being America unfortunately such a fuck off massive country right below your teeny tiny ass country (population wise) does result in a cultural avalanche from said fuck off massive country. Especially when you share a language.

The war of 1812 will forever be funny to me though because Americans were like "hmm maybe Canadians would also like to tell the British to fuck off, we will invade to show them!" And Canada was like *burns down the white house* and we've been tentatively chill with each other ever since lmao (even when we probably like. Shouldn't be cool with America but like. We could not risk that implosion politically or otherwise it'd be suicide).

[britneyshakespeare]

Yesterday at the high school I was in for this art teacher and they all had like projects they were gonna present to work on in Google classroom, so like many days as a substitute teacher it was quiet and I mostly just sat at the desk and read. But then this one kid in my peripheral vision was looking at me and when I glanced over her laughed a little. And I looked away cuz I was like whatever maybe he was whispering smth w his friends.

But then he says "I have a question"

"Yeah?"

"What two colors make purple?"

"Oh. Red and blue"

"Thank you... I appreciate the no judgment answer"

I didn't even think about it lol

[c0rpseductor]

you know i feel kind of lucky that this stye is so minor. like its big by MY standards but its just a tiny bit of swelling on my top eyelid that is only really noticeable up way close. i looked at google's images and apparently they can get ENORMOUS and full of pus like a zit. i had no idea they could get so bad lol

[croquettish]

Sexuality, Acceptability, Risk, and Medieval Bohemia

Someone commented on my Hansry fic recently about how a good number of fics in this fandom apparently feature the sort of modern protestant homophobia emblematic of the United States. This was baffling to me.

More recently I've seen a bit of backlash against this rather normative, America-centric approach to the historical homophobia (deeply entrenched in Catholicism, mind you) that they would have been subject to back then. And, as is quite normal with the internet, naturally the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction. Jokes were made and then taken seriously by others. I've now seen sentiments floating around like "oh they wouldn't have cared at all," (not on tumblr) which is wild to me.

My doctoral studies have to do with queerness in the High Middle Ages, so seeing as I've spent the last several years of my life living on archive.org, knee-deep in this research, I feel like it's my academic responsibility to correct the record some. As usual, the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

All my sources are listed in the text (in the case of art) or at the very end of the post. For those of you just interested in what all of this means for Hansry, feel free to jump down to the purple heading.

I will start by saying that the "queer medieval utopia" you're looking for didn't exist. The closest you're going to get to that is the late 11th century / early 12th century, and even then there were limits to this general social acceptability. Paris and Florence were commonly considered to be gay dens of iniquity by people outside of those places, but even that was a bit of an exaggeration.

So where does this misconception come from?

Within the Catholic landscape, the body was considered separate from the spirit. Only one's "mystic sensorium" was supposed to be involved in spiritual intercourse with Christ and each other, and the overlap of the real and the ideal was… problematic at times, a genuine threat to chastity. Physical affection was meant to not broach certain limits. Kissing was acceptable. Metaphors were acceptable. In ancient Christianity, it was normal for women to kiss other women and for men to kiss other men as part of mass in the name of exchanging the kiss of peace, the pax. The idea here was to meet with the Spirit of Christ. Ambrose likened it to "lovers who, unsatisfied with the mere enjoyment of the lips, kiss so deeply as to interchange their spirits with one another." Which is all well and good, but this leaves a lot of leeway. How much physical affection was considered acceptable?

Anselm, the closest thing we have to a gay man of this time, would write things like this, in this case a letter addressed to two biological brothers that he hoped to join him in the monastic life:

"My eyes long to see your faces most beloved; my arms stretch out to your embraces; my lips long for your kisses; whatever remains to me of life desires your company . . . . Oh, how my love burns in my marrow . . . . [In coming to Bec] you have fused my soul with yours. If you now leave me, our joint soul will be torn apart, it can never again become two."

He had never met them before, nor should this suggest that they were about to enter a sexual relationship. In fact, around this time we see quite a few such expressions of affection coming out of the monastic space. Alcuin, writing to Arno of Salzburg, felt entirely comfortable writing that his love could not be prevented, even in the face of death, from licking Arno's innermost parts, a reference here (most likely) to Christ's side wound. In another letter, Alcuin is even more overt:

"It is exquisitely sweet to remember your love and intimacy, holy father; I wish the dear moment would come when I might embrace the shoulders of your love with the arms of my longing for you. . . . with what speedy hands I would rush into your fatherly embrace, with what pressing lips I would kiss not only your eyes and ears and mouth, but each knuckle of each finger, of each toe, not once, but many, many times!"

It would be extremely easy to assume that these letters suggested more than meets the eye, but historically speaking, as far as we know, this was not the case. Because this level of affection was considered to be in line with the "Christian" thing to do between brothers (no, I'm not joking). And there were harsh punishments if you breached these limits. Bear in mind, these letters could easily be seen by others!

Moreover, it should be noted that we don't see this level of affection outside of the monastic space (though it does still come up, albeit to a much lesser extent). You can think of it as code switching, essentially. Verbiage that would be considered insanely sexual in one space would not be considered as such within a monastic context prior to the shift in the 12th century.

Some scholars suggested that the use of such language implies ignorance or naivety about how this physical affection could look to the outside world, but we do know that Anselm at one point became worried enough that he might be misunderstood that he censored himself after leaving Bec for Canterbury. Even if his inclinations were chaste, he knew they could be viewed through the lens of homosexuality.

The ideal sexual state for a person to be in at this time was rooted in asceticism: chastity in the face of desire. You'd think asexuality would be a quick workaround for that, but unfortunately the lack of desire would just mean a lack of necessary effort on that person's part. Bear in mind, suffering is what's rewarded here. A gay man plagued with homosexual desires is just being tested by God. By denying himself those desires, he's rising in the ranks of holiness. A great example of this is Brother Lucas from KCD1:

According to the Rule of Pachomius, kissing boys on the lips was forbidden and punished by whipping, imprisonment, fasting, shaving, and six months of humiliation. In Fructuosus of Braga's Rule, a monk kissing or even being "too attentive to young men or boys would result in a very similar six month sentence as well as six additional months of manual labor, separated from his brethren, always under watch of at least two spiritual brothers. Never again was he allowed to enjoy private conversation or companionship with those younger than him.

"But Tam!" you might say. "This is just about monks! What about real people?"

I'm so glad you asked! Because we know that as well!

Penitentials, which were quite in vogue until around the 11th century and then again after the passing of Lateran IV in the early 13th century, were very punishing of all manner of sexuality, but especially homosexual acts, and, among them, especially oral sex. (The mouth is considered, to a certain extent, sacred. Don't ask me why, that alone is like twenty pages in my dissertation, though I could be lowballing tbh.) The Penitential of Theodore punishes it with 7 years of harsh penance and 15 years if the practice is habitual. Sometimes, however, it was "until the end of life" and considered to be the "worst evil," worse than fornication with one's mother. Harsh!

Ye olde penitentials were used as guidelines for later confession as well as those from before the 12th century. Conveniently for us, the late, great James A. Brundage came up with a fantastic chart/guide on when and how it was acceptable to have sex at all:

Did people follow this? My god, absolutely not. We wouldn't have the confessional records if this wasn't a problem in the realm of ~sin. But the guidelines were there and expected to be adhered to.

Don't get me wrong, the late 11th / early 12th century was a watershed moment in history in terms of overall acceptability of queerness, a time when Ovid and other Ovidian literature flourished. Punishments were rarely enforced. But the come-down from that era led us to a very rough landing. Lateran III kicked off the official canon ratification of outlawing homosexuality explicitly, and this, together with the outlawing of clerical marriage and the sudden flourishing of courtly love as a genre, led to a very dramatic shift in society from homosocial to heterosexual (which is, incidentally, what my dissertation is about).

The long 12th century was a red letter event in terms of history, not least because some of history's most notorious homophobes spread their ideas like wildfire. I am, of course, talking about Alain de Lille, renowned author of De planctu Naturae ("The Complaint of Nature"), which reminded everyone that homosexuality was against nature, and Peter Damian, who doesn't even deserve being commented on. The idea of homosexuality being "against nature" was far from new. The early church fathers like Augustine and Jerome condemned it pretty outrightly, and in the 13th century St. Thomas Aquinas was more than happy to further entrench the idea. Here, sodomy disrupts nature so much as to dissolve the soul.

We saw this in literature as well. Dante's Divine Comedy (early 14th c) slapped sodomites into the 7th layer of hell, but a real standout here is the Debate Between Ganymede and Helen, where the two have a very lengthy argument wherein she convinces Ganymede (often associated with homosexuality) that heterosexuality is infinitely superior to the alternative. She throws in such lovely arguments as insisting that he at least respect Nature, that he's been deceived by well-disguised filth, that he's been squandering his love between the thighs of men, and that he's been treating himself like human garbage as a result. In the end, he suddenly sees his crime for what it is, and the gods agree with him, stating that they've now also come to their senses. Sodomy is thus left behind by the gods and the choir swells in cheer at this tremendous success.

Canon law more or less exclusively had its grubby little fingers in the pies of what was and wasn't deemed acceptable in terms of sex until about the early-14th c, while afterward the government was delighted to also get involved in your bedroom activities. Particularly in the late 14th century homosexuality was increasingly legislated against, and in increasingly brutal ways at that. This wonderful and not at all problematic marriage of church and state is how we ended up with the Trials of the Knights Templar.

Let's say you're King Philip IV. The people have been revolting, you're running low on funds, you owe the Templars as it is, and you have a penchant for pogroms. You want money and land. What do you do? Well, naturally you write a letter to the pope about how you have all these horrible suspicions about these people you employ and who have come to your aid quite often!

Boy, oh boy! Wasn't that a fun time for them. Before, they'd been well-respected and well-off, supported by the king, with zero doubt in their respectability. Naturally, it all came tumbling down with that letter. Because the investigation was ready to find them at fault for something no matter what, under pain of torture of course. There's a particularly striking letter from a father to his daughter, written during the Bamberg witch trials (much later), wherein he explained that, after a particularly rough torture session, the executioner pulled him aside and told him this: "Sir, I beg you, for God's sake confess something, whether it be true or not. Invent something, for you cannot endure the torture which you will be put to; and, even if you bear it all, yet you will not escape, not even if you were an earl, but one torture will follow after another until you say you are a witch. Not before that will they let you go, as you may see by all their trials, for one is just like another."

Were the Templars recreationally homosexual? Maybe. For their sake, I sure hope so, because then they might have at least had some fun before going out. But either way, they were arrested, their territory, funds, and belongings seized, were convicted of heresy, sodomy, and black magic, and eventually burned at the stake. Two men were later burned at the stake as relapsed heretics after saying that they'd only confessed under duress and were actually innocent.

It even led to fun art like this one in 1350:

De Longuyon, Jacques. Voeux du Paon Manuscript. 1350. Morgan Library and Museum, New York. G.24 fol. 70r.

It was also around this time also that homosexuality was increasingly associated not only with heresy, but also with bestiality, suggesting that this crime against nature was effectively also a crossing of special boundaries (species-based, not extraordinary). In line with this, while homage to one's liege used to be sworn with a kiss on the lips (!!), over the course of the 14th century that was summarily done away with as well in a change that quite frankly swept across Europe (and we all wept).

In 1327, Edward II, who had a few boyfriends, was supposedly murdered by having a red hot poker shoved up his rectum. Even if this didn't happen, the chroniclers wanted us to believe it, and knowing what we do about Edward's sexual proclivities, it seems like this was a Statement if nothing else.

Where Bologna used to punish homosexuality with a fine, after the late 13th century the punishment was death by burning. The Portuguese, meanwhile, castrated convicted homosexuals and then, three days later, had them hanged by the feet until dead. In Siena, death by hanging was also the answer, but in this case, it was hanging by the dick until dead (not kidding). A particularly horrifying case was this one, happening just six years after when KCD canon takes place:

Which reminds us that this was most likely an issue that very much associated the clergy (known to be corrupt, especially around this time!). You'll recall the little comments made about this in the game, like Godwin casually committing heresy in front of the whole crew. "Do you think you need a priest for God to hear you?" Well geez, Godwin, according to the Catholic Church, you sure as shit fucking do! What a fantastic and not at all risky thing to say!

(Sidenote, this one is particularly upsetting to me personally in a fandom context because, not only is Augsburg not far from Bohemia, it really reminds me of the many associations between Hans and a caged bird.)

All of which isn't to say that sodomy didn't take place. Boy did it fucking ever. A great example of this comes from out of Switzerland, where, in 1475, a priest reportedly told his lover that "if everybody who committed [the act of sodomy] was burnt at the stake, not even fifty men would survive in Basel." ("Vnd solt man alle die so das tuend verbrennen, es bliben nit funffzig mannen jn Basel.") So, 1% of Basel. This is almost certainly a massive fucking exaggeration that this man pulled out of his ass in order to convince his partner that sodomy is fine, actually, but it does tell us something about the perception, if not the actual prevalence of sodomy in urban centers. (So, you know, if anyone needs to justify that Jadder have fucked at least once, if not more… when in Kuttenberg...)

It should be noted that Basel was very lax in terms of punishing homosexuality, but that was by and large not the most common outcome, as homosexuality was generally associated with divine punishment (I'm sure you've heard that drivel yourself before even in the modern day). Hilariously, it was the generally held belief that if someone learned of "the vice against nature" they'd naturally want to do it, and so priests were advised never to talk about it, even to preach.

So then, what does this mean for Hansry and co?

It means that this was at worst very much a fucking crime that you could very much be convicted for, in brutal fucking fashion at times, and at best the quiet part that you don't say out loud. But even then, it was fucking risky. Riskier if you're a member of the clergy (do recall how worried Brother Lucas was about his secret getting out, despite having never committed the sin himself), but risky even if you're not. All you have to do to see this reflected in canon is to look at Barnaby, the herbalist/hermit. As he explained it, he turned down a girl, she complained to her brother, and "he put two and two together":

Remember how I said that homosexuality was increasingly associated with bestiality? I find Barnaby's word choice fascinating here. Animals like him.

Of course, he beat them up and thus... uh, was able to survive:

Not that it didn't massively affect his quality of life. There's a reason he's a hermit! After all, he was unwelcome no matter where he went, no doubt because the brother and his friends ensured that this knowledge spread:

You might say, oh, it's different among the nobility! And to a certain extent, you're correct. Talking to the scribe in Troskowitz, he at one point gets to a part in the story about George the Lion of Wartenberg where he says this:

And then later, at the banquet where Hans loses his mind from jealousy, it comes up quite a lot in the conversation with Black Bartosch. First, he brings up Florian of Lomnitz:

And then, of course, we get the legendary conversation that follows, where the comment about Florian's sexuality makes Henry question Bartosch about his own:

It's soooo subtle. So, so easy to turn to plausible deniability. If anyone questions it, you can easily argue that your intentions were entirely chaste. And Henry can ignore it or even outright respond with a claim of heterosexuality:

But he can't question it like he can with the scribe:

Where the scribe then brushes it off as nothing and refuses to elaborate:

Even here this is a case of IYKTYK, like homosexuality is a club and in order to enter you have to know what's up. Because if you don't know and have to be informed, that presents a risk, namely that of suspicion being cast on you. Why do you know this information? What were you doing at this sodomitical devil's sacrament?

Honestly, at least among the nobility I'd liken it a bit to prohibition, but on a much less... widespread level. Oh, and literally everyone and anyone could be a cop. You could get away with it until you were caught. The risk was just a lot more pronounced. Even with Edward II the consequence of the very accurate rumors surrounding his sex life was public denunciation and possibly a poker up his ass. And if you're a noble involved with a commoner, multiply the risk exponentially, which is unfortunately relevant for both Hansry and Jamuel. If it really was as casually acceptable as some people claim it to have been (again, not on tumblr, I'm not here to stir up drama), I think Henry wouldn't have necessarily pushed Hans away, nor do I think they would have been as careful in their end-game conversation about what they do and don't say.

If anyone has any questions on this, tangentially-related topics, my sources, or literally anything else, by all means feel free to ask. I have the resources at my fingertips and the research very much at the forefront of my mind and will for the foreseeable future. On request, I've also added a list of further reading after my list of sources if anyone is curious to learn more of this for themselves.

Sources used:

Abraham, Erin V. Anticipating Sin in Medieval Society: Childhood, Sexuality, and Violence in the Early Penitentials, Amsterdam University Press, 2021

Anselm. The Letters of Saint Anselm of Canterbury. Translated by Walter Fröhlich, Cistercian Publications, 1990.

Brundage, James A. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Dronke, Peter. Medieval Latin and the Rise of the European Love-Lyric, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 1965.

Major, J. Russell. “‘Bastard Feudalism’ and the Kiss: Changing Social Mores in Late Medieval and Early Modern France.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 17, no. 3, 1987, pp. 509–35. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/204609. 

Mills, Robert. Seeing Sodomy in the Middle Ages. University of Chicago Press, 2015

Moore, R. I. The War on Heresy: Faith and Power in Medieval Europe. Profile Books, 2014.

Murray, Jacqueline, and Konrad Eisenbichler, editors. Desire and Discipline: Sex and Sexuality in the Premodern West. University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Perella, Nicolas J. The Kiss Sacred and Profane: An Interpretative History of Kiss Symbolism and Related Religio-Erotic Themes. University of California Press, 1969.

Puff, Helmut. “Localizing Sodomy: The ‘Priest and Sodomite’ in Pre-Reformation Germany and Switzerland.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 8, no. 2, 1997, pp. 165–95. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3704215.

Puff, Helmut. Lust, Angst Und Provokation: Homosexualität in Der Gesellschaft. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.

Southern, R.W., Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape, Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Stehling, Thomas. Medieval Latin Poems of Male Love and Friendship. Garland Pub, 1984.

Recommended further reading:

Bailey, Derrick Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. Archon Books, 1975. Originally published by Longmans, Green & Co., 1955.

Barbezat, Michael D. “Bodies of Spirit and Bodies of Flesh: The Significance of the Sexual Practices Attributed to Heretics from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 25, no. 3, 2016, pp. 387–419. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44862359. 

Brundage, James A. "Playing by the Rules: Sexual Behaviour and Legal Norms in Medieval Europe". Desire and Discipline: Sex and Sexuality in the Premodern West, edited by Konrad Eisenbichler and Jacqueline Murray, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442673854-004

Bullough, Vern L. “Heresy, Witchcraft, and Sexuality.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 1, no. 2, 3 Mar. 1976, pp. 183–199, https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v01n02_03.

---. “The Sin against Nature and Homosexuality.” Sexual Practices & the Medieval Church, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1994, pp. 55–71.

Bullough, Vern L., and James A. Brundage, editors. Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. Garland Publishing, 1996.

---, editors. Sexual Practices & the Medieval Church. Prometheus Books, 1994.

Burger, Glenn, and Steven F. Kruger, editors. Queering the Middle Ages. NED-New edition, vol. 27, University of Minnesota Press, 2001. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttszw5.

Clark, David. Between Medieval Men: Male Friendship and Desire in Early Medieval English Literature . Oxford University Press, 2009.

Dinshaw, Carolyn. Getting Medieval: Sexualities and Communities, Pre- and Postmodern. Duke University Press, 1999.

Fradenburg Louise, et al., editors. Premodern Sexualities. Routledge, 1995.

Frassetto, Michael. Heresy and the Persecuting Society in the Middle Ages: Essays on the Work of R.I. Moore. Brill, 2006.

Gilbert, Arthur N. “Conceptions of Homosexuality and Sodomy in Western History.” The Gay Past: A Collection of Historical Essays, edited by Salvatore J. Licata and Robert P. Petersen, Harrington Press, New York, NY, 1985, pp. 57–68.

Goodich, Michael. “Sodomy in Ecclesiastical Law and Theory.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 1, no. 4, 20 June 1976, pp. 427–434, https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v01n04_06.

---. “Sodomy in Medieval Secular Law.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 1, no. 3, 20 June 1976, pp. 295–302, https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v01n03_04.

---. The Unmentionable Vice Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period. Ross-Erikson, 1979.

Jordan, Mark D. The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Karras, Ruth Mazo. “Attitudes to Same-Sex Sexual Relations in the Latin World.” A Companion to Crime and Deviance in the Middle Ages, edited by Hannah Skoda, Arc Humanities Press, 2023, pp. 84–101. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.3716022.9. 

---. From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.

---. “The Regulation of ‘Sodomy’ in the Latin East and West.” Speculum, vol. 95, no. 4, 1 Oct. 2020, pp. 969–986, https://doi.org/10.1086/710639.

---. Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing unto Others. Routledge, 2012.

Kruger, Steven F. “Queer Middle Ages.” The Ashgate Research Companion to Queer Theory, 1st ed., Routledge, New York, NY, 2009, pp. 413–434.

Kuefler, Mathew, editor. The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Lees, Clare A., et al. Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages. University of Minnesota Press, 1994.

Pierce, Rosamond. “The ‘Frankish’ Penitentials.” Studies in Church History, vol. 11, 1975, pp. 31–39, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0424208400006276. 

***Please note: my omission of Boswell's CSTH here is entirely intentional. I know that if people here got a hold of him he'd be considered a tumblr darling, easy. If I could, I would wear merch with his name on it. And normally I would list him loudly and proudly. But I'm not, because the man loved reading into things that at times aren't there, and there are countless critiques that have been leveled against CSTH, many of which Boswell himself agreed with. So. If the general tumblr population wasn't constantly pissing on the poor I might trust it in their hands, but as it is, I know that nuance is lost on people!

(would you believe me if I said I tried to restrain myself in curating this list? no?? well I DID)

[teaboot]

hiiiiiii so i have concepts of a story that were halted months ago due to my inability to fathom writing From The Perspective Of A Toddler. & now i have learned that you apparently remember the experience VIVIDLY. & i would like to ask,, if you would be so kind,, if you would be amenable to. giving tips. answering questions. etc

for instance the extremely crucial Do You Remember When You Learned How To Spell Your Name. & What Was Thinking Like

. pretty please i had lost hope

Oh, sure! Yeah, no problem

Kay so I learned how to read at around 4 and was p much fluent around 5- I remember cause I LOVED Calvin and Hobbes and Calvin was one year older than me

When I was 3ish I remember my mom starting with the alphabet, and I remembered learning it in chunks- so I usually didn’t forget just a single letter, but the whole chunk. ABCD-EFG-HIJK, like how the song goes, but if I got stuck on D and couldn’t remember E I’d jump to H just grasping for the next thing I could remember. And she made me learn in German too, so I got the idea of certain letters being able to make different noises

*(English alphabet LMNOP was the hardest cause it sounded like a word- ELEMENOPEE- and since all letter names sound like words I thought it was just one letter, like DOUBLE-YOU and WHY.)

**(My favourite German letter was OOPSILON ‘cause my mom made it sound like something you’d say after falling down in a silly way- like “whoopsie-doodles” or smthn)

So by the time it came to reading and writing, I already had most of the sounds memorized- the hardest things to remember where letters that COULD sound the same but weren’t interchangeable- like G and J- and which letters were usually in pairs and when- like -CK and Qu- -and which directions they faced when I wrote them down.

The most common backwards-letters were J, L, N, b, d, S, Z, a, q, and r.

I’m not getting doxxed today but my name had letter/s that I consistently wrote backwards.

In early grades, our teacher wrote our names on big pieces of paper and taped them to the top of our desks so we could see them every day, and let us decorate around them with pencil crayons so they’d be personalized. So remembering the right letters in the right order was pretty easy pretty fast, but some would still be backwards.

After we had the alphabet song down, we all got workbooks with 26 double-sides pages or so where there was one line of a single letter spelled in dashes we could trace, like Aa Aa Aa, then a line of capitals we had to free-write, like AAAA, then a line in lowercase- aaaa. After there was a line of text using that letter we could trace- Anna ate an apple- and then like five lines where we’d repeat it.

We were only supposed to do one or two a day, and I frequently got in trouble for blowing past that.

We had other workbooks just like that for learning cursive, but IMO cursive was easier because we already knew the letters, we just had to learn how they looked then they were fancy and how to connect them fluidly.

The worst part of learning to write was keeping the pencil steady. Holding a pencil to write when you’ve never done it before is kind of uncomfortable till you find a position that works for you, and it takes a while to get a feel for how close your fingers should be to one end. On top of that, it’s super hard to get a tidy line of any shape until your motor skills catch up- and they only catch up if you DO it enough.

My least-favourite things about learning to write was guessing which words ended in a silent E, whether or not a Wr- word was just an R-, and remembering that Q was always followed by a U.

Th- Wh- Ch- -Ce and Sh- sounds had an entire class one day, and a separate poster on the board with trains and people shushing so we’d know which one was which. Like a cheat sheet! Our teacher would sometimes tape construction paper over them before class started or during recess and we wouldn’t notice until after she announced a surprise pop quiz.

I hope some of this was what you were looking for?

Good luck writing! :D

[book-of-forbidden-knowledge]

Magic in Ancient Greece: An Introduction

I have seen some people claim that magic or witchcraft did not exist in Ancient Greece. This is not the case. So, I thought I'd take the opportunity to introduce you all to the strange and wonderful world of Ancient Greek magic!

First, what do we mean by "magic"? Radcliffe Edmonds, one of the leading scholars on Ancient Greek magic, defines "magic" as "non-normative ritual behavior." In short, what makes something magic, and not just normal religion, is that people in a given culture think it's weird. The word "magic" itself refers to the magi, Zoroastrian priests — the Ancient Greeks thought they did magic because to them, Zoroastrianism was foreign and weird. They also thought that Ancient Egyptians could do magic for the same reason — what the Greeks thought was spooky magic was just normal religion in Egypt. Within their own culture, magic was basically heteropraxic religion. Magic was not considered hubristic, at least not inherently.

There are multiple Ancient Greek words that refer to magic. The word μάγος, magos, itself means "magician" or "charlatan." There's also γοητεία, goetia, usually translated as "sorcery." The word most often translated as "witchcraft" is φαρμακεία, pharmakeia, the use of drugs or herbs to transform or influence people. This is what Medea and Circe do.

One of our best sources on Ancient Greek magic is the Greek Magical Papyri, or PGM, a set of magical texts from Hellenistic Egypt. When I first learned about it, I thought it was too good to be true, but here it is: uncorrupted ancient pagan magic! Essentially, the PGM is one of the oldest known grimoires, and the ancestor of the entire Western magical tradition. The papyri contain spells and rituals for almost every purpose: curses, love spells, divination, dream oracles, summoning daimones, necromancy, even full mystical rites. Most of them include invocations to various gods, which are heavily syncretic. Helios/Apollo (treated interchangeably) is invoked the most often. Aphrodite appears pretty often, too. Hekate-Artemis-Selene-Persephone (conflated with a whole bunch of other chthonic goddesses, including Ereshkigal) has her own set of spells. You'll even find the names of Egyptian gods and Hebrew angels in there.

One of the most common features in PGM spells is voces magicae or barbarous names, nonsense words that are supposed to be the secret names of the gods, which give you the authority to call them up. They act almost like a written form of glossolalia. Most are supposed to be spoken or chanted aloud. Some sound like actual names, or are well-known magical epithets like ABRASAX. Some are just strings of Greek vowels. Some of them are palindromic; there's lots of spells that use the "abracadabra" disappearing-letter-triangle format. There's also charakteres, apparently-meaningless magical symbols, the distant ancestor of modern sigils.

Another major source for Ancient Greek magic are defixiones or katadesmoi, curse tablets. They're little lead leafs called lamellae, which are inscribed with curses and then deposited in wells, graves, and other chthonic places. Thousands of them have been found.

Here's the text of a curse tablet that invokes Hekate and Hermes Kthonios (copied from Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World by John G. Gager):

Hermes Khthonios and Hekate Khthonia Let Pherenikos be bound before Hermes Khthonios and Hekate Khthonia. I bind Pherenikos’ [girl] Galene to Hermes Khthonios and to Hekate Khthonia I bind [her]. And just as this lead is worthless and cold, so let that man and his property be worthless and cold, and those who are with him who have spoken and counseled concerning me. Let Thersilochos, Oinophilos, Philotios, and any other supporter of Pherenikos be bound before Hermes Khthonios and Hekate Khthonia. Also Pherenikos’ soul and mind and tongue and plans and the things that he is doing and the things that he is planning concerning me. May everything be contrary for him and for those counseling and acting with…

Another curse tablet, which invokes Hekate to punish thieves, includes a drawing of her and charakteres. This is how she's depicted:

From Curse Tablets and Binding Spells in the Ancient World by John G. Gager

It's supposed to be a woman with three heads and six raised arms, but to me it looks like Cthulhu, which is honestly appropriate.

There was a very fine line between love spells and curses in Ancient Greece. Some love spells in the PGM call upon the spirits of the dead and chthonic gods to torture a poor girl until she submits to the magician. Just as many defixiones attempt to forcefully bind a lover. But there's another, gentler kind of love spell described by Theocritus in Idylls, in which a witch named Simaetha invokes the Moon and Hekate and uses an iynx wheel to make a man love her.

If you want to know how to apply all of this in modern practice, I'm still working that one out. I've found the PGM very hard to adapt, because a lot of its requirements are dangerous or impractical. Many of its spells require gross ingredients worthy of the Scottish play, or plants that scholars can't identify, or procedures that I don't plan on attempting. And if you haven't noticed by now, most of them fly in the face of modern magical ethics. (Don't let anyone tell you that the gods will punish you for doing baneful magic, because that's clearly bullshit.) On the other hand, Crowley adapted his Bornless Ritual almost word-for-word from PGM V. 96—172. So far, the best resource I've found on modernizing Ancient Greek magic is The Hekataeon by Jack Grayle. Its material is clearly historically-inspired, but still doable, and spiritually relevant. I really recommend getting it if you have the means, especially if you have an interest in Hekate specifically. I'm happy to have it as a model for how to adapt ancient magic for myself in the future. To me, it strikes the perfect balance between historically-informed and witchy, which is right where I want to be.

If you can't access that one, here's some other books I recommend:

Drawing Down the Moon: Magic in the Ancient Greco-Roman World by Radcliffe G. Edmonds III: An introduction to Ancient Greek magic, both scholarly and accessible. It covers the definitions and contexts of magic, curses, love spells, divination, theurgy, philosophy, basically everything you need to know.

The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation by Hans Dieter Betz: The definitive English edition of the PGM. A must if you plan to study ancient magic in-depth, especially as a practitioner.

Curse Tablets and Binding Spells in the Ancient World by John G. Gager: An English edition of the texts of many curse tablets.

Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds by Daniel Ogden: a sourcebook of ancient literature concerning magic.

The Golden Ass by Apuleius: A Roman novel about a man who is turned into a donkey by a witch. A very entertaining story, also our source for "Cupid and Psyche" and one of the best sources on the Mysteries of Isis that we have.

Ancient Magic: A Practitioners Guide to the Supernatural in Ancient Greece and Rome by Philip Matyszak: A simple and straightforward introduction to Ancient Greek magic, less scholarly but very easy to follow and directed at practitioners.

[allpiesforourown]

ahem hem. robo shizun with interchangeable body parts. it means funny useful hand attachments but also. optional pussy

No notes. A+ anon.

Okay actually . Sorry

Shen Yuan: I used the whisk attachment you gave me and tried to bake some cookies but I went too fast and whipped them into liquid..

Binghe gently taking off the dough covered whisk and reattaching his regular hand: its okay a-yuan, leave the cooking to me.. if you want to feed me something why don't you straddle my face and let me taste your cunt hmm?

Shen yuan: .... sure. Want me to pour some Gatorade in my tank instead of lubricant so you can taste that instead -_-

Binghe: ..... okay sorry I really appreciate you trying to cook. Thank you

Shen Yuan, stubborn: I didn't say I wanted thanks I was just asking a question. Do you want sprite flavored pussy today instead master. Since that's all I can do right apparently

Binghe: sighs my sex robot is mad at me again

[hadesisqueer]

I saw your thread on twitter and you saying "that’s not a Book Annabeth that’s a random white girl” refering to Annabeth’s fancastings made by racist fans made my day. Because you are right. That is indeed a random white girl.

Precisely, like, allow me to show you the difference with a picrew between how Annabeth is truly described in the novels vs how they apparently picture her.

This would be close to an actual "Book Accurate Annabeth". Curly blonde hair (that she barely takes care half of the time), stormy grey eyes that have been described to look almost black depending on the lighting, and tan skin. Canonically she is pretty tall for a girl, and pretty athletic, too.

Okay now, this is the kind of girl they use for their fancasts.

Always pale, usually blue eyes, usually 5 feet tall, skinny. Hair usually straight or slightly wavy (that's curly to them). The only "book accurate" thing would be that they're both blonde. And white. A good bunch of them were actually happy with Alexandra Daddario even if she is not book accurate at all, either. Not even in personality. That is the thing though, they only care about having a white Annabeth. Not about book accuracy.

It's fine if you use the old character designs from the books, as I believe Rick Riordan himself said it was okay, and it's fine if you prefer the show's. I myself use the book and show descriptions interchangeably in my mind all the time, with all the characters. But be respectful. The people who are hateful toward the show and specially show Annabeth are pathetic, and it's kind of sad, because Leah perfectly captures Annabeth's personality and they are missing out on the great performance of a very talented young actress that truly understands what the character is all about. Use the design you want but be respectful. And if you're gonna be passive aggressive about book accuracy at least stick to actual book accuracy idk.

[anistarrose]

I just saw a post with a very dangerous conflation of terminology going around (and on International Asexuality Day, no less!) so as a polite but firm, and apparently much-needed reminder:

Sex repulsed/averse, sex indifferent, and sex favorable are terms used especially by the asexual spectrum community to describe personal feelings and interest levels towards sex. You don't have to identify with any of these terms (all of the time, or any of the time) to be ace-spec, or have to be ace-spec to use these terms, but lots of ace-specs consider them useful vocabulary — since we do, after all, exist on a wide spectrum.

These terms are not the same thing as being sex negative or sex positive, and they should not be used interchangeably! Sex negativity and sex positivity refer to attitudes towards sex in a societal setting, and the associated regressive, queerness-punishing societal norm (sex negativity) or movement to fix/overthrow that societal norm (sex positivity).

Calling sex repulsed asexuals "sex negative" conflates ace people's individual feelings about sex with societal sex negativity and cultural conservatism. Maybe not to you using that term, knowing what you mean, but to potential readers. And that doesn't mean you're consciously aphobic or anything, but it's still a vital misconception to address — because implying, accidentally or otherwise, that ace people are invariably sex negative or even responsible for sex negativity is pretty fucked up!

It encourages acephobia in queer communities (especially online ones), drives wedges between people who would otherwise be among each other's closest allies in the fight for queer liberation... and even neglects the fact that even sex repulsed asexuals suffer harm from sex negativity, too! Sex negative culture doesn't let you talk about asexuality without being accused of "oversharing," or "corrupting the youth!" That's, like, one of the aphobe talking points, even though it's just recycled homophobia and transphobia, and it proves the need to truly understand asexuality and sex positivity as forces that are by no means inherently opposed!

TL;DR: Please don't conflate sex negativity with sex repulsion or aversion — it feeds misconceptions that in turn feed aphobic discourse. This sex positive, sex averse ace, and many others in the same boat or similar boats, will all thank you for using the right wording!

[sluttycinderella]

Razorgate: an empirical, peer reviewed study*

*there is nothing genuinely scientific about this, it is merely a result of mental illness and unemployment.

So we all saw this right?

But after this bomb was dropped I began to get curious about the other slittenings. Did they use the same razor for all of them and no one had noticed? Do they actually own more than one razor? And if they don't, if this is truly the only phrazor, then I don't think I have to tell you that raises a lot of questions.

Firstly, I went back to where this all began, Phil's Birthday stream, to identify the razor that carved the very first slit and forever cemented itself as a part of herstory:

Now that is very clearly the Manscaped logo, no question about it. Here’s a high quality photo of the logo for comparison:

(You can also clearly see in the Twitter post that it says "Manscaped" across it but I like to double check my work and I also wanted to prove that they were both Manscaped)

And it's a good thing I did double check because OP made a CRITICAL ERROR in their post! They claim that the razor in question is the Lawn Mower 4.0 when in fact it's the Lawn Mower 5.0 Ultra! Unlike the PUNY, PATHETIC, UNMANLY 4.0, the Lawn Mower 5.0 Ultra comes with an interchangeable foil blade, a USB port, and a more advanced spotlight!

How could OP be so careless? Dan and Phil would never own an outdated razor! They require only the finest in ball shaving technology!

Also fun fact: The first appearance of the Lawn Mower 5.0 Ultra on the Manscaped YouTube channel falls right in between the dapg return announcement and their first video back so make of that what you will...I for one shall be sculpting my own hill out of the very earth itself, "Manscaped Sponsorship Hill", I encourage you all to join me.

So after spending far too long researching the intricacies of razors that shave an organ I don't even have, I now needed to check if it was the same razor being used in every slittening:

Here they are side by side for comparison, left is Phil’s birthday, middle is the We're All Doomed post-premiere, right is Dan’s birthday. Now it appears the WAD one is missing the logo but I'm going to go ahead and chalk that up to the poor quality of the clip I found (if anyone has a better version PLEASE hit me up so I can confirm my hypothesis). And considering the photo taken in the aftermath seems to show Phil holding the 5.0 Ultra:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's the same thing.

“But,” I hear you shouting, “so what if Dan and Phil used the same razor for all the streams? They already said they only owned one razor so who cares?” Well this isn’t so much about proving that they’re the same razor as it is establishing a baseline. It’s hard to trust basically anything Dan and Phil say lately, what with piggate and the “pillow” bar and the fake view from the Phouse, knowing that they aren’t lying about only having one razor (to the best of our knowledge) is crucial in figuring out what exactly is going on. Remember, we’re doing science here.

And with that in mind: In my professional opinion, I can say that for all three slittenings, the Manscaped Lawn Mower 5.0 Ultra was the weapon of choice.

Sidenote: I went down a bit of a rabbit hole of Manscaped reviews during all of this and apparently Manscaped razors are kind of just a scam. This razor is $109 and they try to trick their customers into subscribing to their "Peak Hygiene Plan" which you don't actually need by offering a deceptive discount and hiding the terms where people aren't likely to see them. So yeah, fuck Manscaped and I for one think we should cancel Dan and Phil for not ethically consuming under capitalism.

But that's beside the point, we know that they indeed only have one razor and that that razor...is for balls. What does that tell us?

Conclusions

There are a multitude of conclusions one could jump to in the light of such a revelation, I shall display them in a convenient numbered list for your viewing pleasure:

One of them prefers to use straight (lol) razors to shave their...you know...I don't actually know if this is a thing people do or if it's even possible, people with balls please sound off in the comments, thank you

Only one of them actually shaves in which case I support them as an infamous pussy hair enthusiast (iykyk)

They share a razor (Please, God, no, that's actually disgusting)

Either way, this thing was on someone's balls and then it touched both their faces so I really hope they cleaned it properly!

Alright, so that whole exploration may have been a bit useless, it indeed only confirmed what we had already been told, but I spent literal hours comparing photos of ball hair trimmers and I'm not one to admit defeat. Consider yourselves peer reviewed, Dan and Phil, and maybe check out Beardscape instead! Apparently they have better, more comprehensive razors for the same price.

If anyone even more demon than me has any corroborating evidence (maybe of them using straight razors at any point or anything else razor related that they've said in the past) please let me know so I can take it into consideration! Thank you all for your time.

[kelpweedkelpweedingkelpweeds]

My list of individual hcs for marecal bcs @maryxherie thinks I have good takes (I'd like to beg to differ but here's my list anyways)

- Mare and Cal are interchangeable in the "*flexes power and looks badass* will you go out with me pretty please" "we're married."

-Cal touches Mare unconsciously in public and everyone's like "oh my god will you two just get a room"

- Mare and Cal are each other's 1st kisses bcs Cal stayed away from anything romance related and Mare nvr bothered in the Stilts

- Everyone in court suspected Cal was gay cause he nvr exhibited any interest in girls and he's also very pretty (unrelated but I'd like to think that after Tiberias 5 everyone just assumed his descendants were going to all be gay too), then Mare came along and everyone was like "nope, apparently he just has a thing for feisty girls"

- Cal has interest in things from the old generation before the Calamities and studies our era's tech, he got his design for his cycle based on some nearly unreadable diagrams Julian showed him of motorcycles

- Mare's short because she's malnourished (I mean it's canonically true Norta has unideal farmland unlike the Lakelands so food is more unaffordable and of lower quality) and she probably could have grown a little extra if her food wasn't as shit as it was

- Cal has a nice voice (I mean his mother is a singer and I believe it's kind of canon that descendants of singers tend to have melodic voices) and he could definitely sing if he learned ok I can't believe VA would dare say this man would be bad at it

- Mare was an unknowing heartbreaker, as in there were guys that took interest in her in the Stilts but back then she didn't care about romance and was kinda already set on marrying Kilorn/dying in war

- Cal is a romantic, he would believe in love and eventual happy endings (which he got, good for him)

- Cal definitely gives good hugs like that man is tall and warm and everything

- Mare would be the parent who does all the disciplining because Cal would be too soft on the kids

- They would work in Cal's garage together and Mare just troubleshoots all the battery/connection problems e.g. "yea the wire there probably isn't connected properly no electricity there"

Honestly I don't actually have that many but I will eventually compile more, I think about them often enough that the headcanons will come naturally :)

[girderednerve]

i am now about three-quarters of the way through my book about credit cards (plastic capitalism by sean h. vanatta), which means i have gotten through a good part of the early credit card fraud stuff, and i have two main thoughts about it, which are: a) this shit is completely fucking bananas and b) the supernatural guys making their living by credit card fraud is much funnier than i realized

the reason it's very funny to me is that credit card fraud started out being sort of not technically illegal, because credit cards were novel technology & weren't immediately directly covered by the law. banks that issued credit cards were committed to unsolicited mailing as an advertising strategy, beginning with the bankamericard launch in 1958. i knew that credit card junk mail is a big old thing but i didn't realize that they just mailed out ACTIVATED CARDS???? like tens of millions of them over fifteen years???? so people, obviously, stole them out of other people's mailboxes, because the intended recipient didn't know it was there to contact the bank and cancel the card, and it was more or less a free money card. banks for some reason did not foresee this problem, and struggled with combating it: in rabidly pursuing market share, they neglected to ensure that they had adequate infrastructure to respond promptly to fraud, which was technologically difficult anyway because credit card processing went through the mail. law nerds will at this point go, "oh? it went through the mail? well it sounds like credit card fraud was, if nothing else, perhaps covered by the notoriously broad mail fraud statute," which credit card companies did successfully convince a few federal prosecutors & judges to pursue. [FUNNY TO ME because by the time that supernatural decided to bring up how dean's revenue streams are basically all illegal, i.e. season three, which aired in 2008, it was transparently illegal to steal someone's credit card and unsolicited mailing of activated cards was banned, but banks still mailed preapproved credit card applications, which dean would steal and fraudulently fill in, so. you know. mail fraud!]

actually for a while one of the circuits decided that credit card fraud necessarily used the mail, so anyone with a fraudulent credit card could be found guilty of mail fraud out of hand. some hardworking defense lawyers elsewhere managed to argue successfully that their clients were, in effect, too incompetent and careless to have ever considered how credit cards worked, and thus had no criminal intent with regards to the mail. some people walked away from thousands of dollars of fraudulent charges on the defense that they were clueless. beautiful. (sidebar, the book spends in my opinion objectively too much time on case law, probably as a symptom of having begun life as a dissertation, but it's also pretty funny, so i get it.)

because credit cards were processed through the mail, all of the advice for criminally using credit cards was like, 'don't spend more than a thousand dollars in one place, and use out-of-state cards, because those banks will be slower to realize what's happened.' really funny shit, honestly. because the whole enforcement system was, extremely on purpose, deeply regional! usury laws were set at the state level; fraud laws varied by state; federal courts mostly didn't think it was their problem, unless prosecutors thought credit card fraud was being used to fund organized crime, which it sometimes was; individual credit card companies made different investments in internal fraud prevention (american express went long on this, apparently). the whole system of interchange between banks was super slow & pretty goofy, because the system for interstate credit cards required an issuing bank to work with a local agent bank through a whole wacky series of relationships. for example, a bank americard might be issued by an omaha bank, and mailed to a consumer in minnesota (as occurred in the landmark marquette case!); the consumer would take their bankamericard to local merchants, who accepted the card at point of sale, then sent an invoice to the omaha bank through the mail. the omaha bank would pay the merchant, minus a service fee, charge bank of america's account through the fed's system, and then veeeery slowly bother to process and mail the transaction slip so bank of america could charge them. the unprocessed transaction slips, which at one point accounted for millions of dollars in 1969 money, was called "float." this shit is so stupid. i can't believe they did that. they did change it up in the early '70s, by restructuring how the interchange system worked. but it still ran through the MAIL. you can see why those guys were all hyped up on the idea of mainframes, not just to cut labor costs (it was also to cut labor costs: margins on early credit card programs were very low or often negative because the processing labor was so high).

there was a huge regulatory fight where credit card companies wanted to keep doing stupid shit and make the government responsible for enforcement, and the government wanted to apply consumer protections and not shoulder the expensive project of fraud enforcement. the post office must've hated those guys, they caused so many problems & kept acting like it was USPS's fault that the credit card fraud was happening. the reason i bring this trend up is that that's the story of financial regulation in the united states: private actors want the right to innovate around the rules, and then hand over the responsibility for the risk generated to the state, which is to say to taxpayers. i was, nonsensically, astonished by how set the playbook is. it's easier to see why the crypto guys keep acting like this is going to work out when you know how much shit finance guys have historically gotten away with.

there was a lot of back-and-forth about interest caps, too. consumer groups wanted cheaper credit; some people pointed out that cheaper credit required lenders to only service less-risky borrowers, which meant that credit availability for lower-income borrowers would dry up. the obvious solution, i.e. just providing social goods to lower-income borrowers, was off the table because we had to be Tough on Communism. labor unions were really into consumer protection, because they understood the availability of cheap consumer credit as clear to driving the demand that sustained union jobs. really american perspective! the american economy was more or less uniquely reliant on private credit to effect social policy.

anyway it's very appropriate stupid crime for the winchesters to do, because it points to the fragmented regulatory environment in the united states! which maps neatly onto their whole rugged individualism thing! and it's also coded as clever in a lazy, petty-crook way, which works really well for their whole deal. did this sidebar need to be there? yes & i make no apologies. well. very little apology.

if you have read something fun about financial history please feel personally invited to tell me about it!!!

[spiritsglade]

hey so about jason's death (some of the stuff that happened after)

A continuation of this post, which I recommend reading first. All disclaimers from there apply here as well--we're sticking to post-crisis & maybe i missed stuff.

In related news, here is my death certificate hater-posting.

Better people than me have compiled the victim blaming regarding Jason's death (along with more general commentary about how Bruce reacted emotionally to Jason's death), so I won't really be diving into that here.

I could also talk for, frankly, far too long about how Bruce's monologue at the beginning of #428 is already retconning and rewriting so much of their relationship dynamic and basic facts about what happened, but that's not what we're here for. Another time, perhaps.

Immediate fallout

Bruce finds Sheila first. Sheila says (1) the Joker did all this (2) Jason tried to save Sheila and was a really good kid and must've really loved his mom. At no point does Sheila mention she betrayed Jason.

Bruce finds Jason next. Apparently his corpse is already cold to touch, but Bruce checks the pulse anyway. (This is simply impossible--corpses take a long ass time to cool, but it does indicate that Jason's supposed to been dead for a while, at this point. Namely, that he died in the explosion and NOT to smoke inhalation after the fact I don't CARE what the death certificate sa--*gets shot*)

Batman (1940) #428 pg 14

Bruce covers up the crime. He removes all proof of Robin before calling authorities. We don't know exactly what he told them, besides that (1) he didn't know what caused the explosion, but implies it was an accident (2) he identified the victims by their real names, and called them mother and son.

Bruce flies the bodies back to the states for burial. The Joker has killed all his henchmen, leaving their bodies behind in a different warehouse (in Addis Ababa). He leaves a message on the wall in red paint telling Bruce to meet him at an address back in Gotham.

(This contradicts with later panels from Red Hood: The Lost Days Issue #1, in which the League of Assassins tortures interrogates Joker's henchmen that witnessed Robin's death. The LoA did kill them afterwards, though, so either way they're definitely dead by now.)

Bruce "takes the Joker at his word" and flies home with the two corpses.

The funeral & casket

I use coffin and casket somewhat interchangeably because dc does too, but it is worth noting that these are two different things. It looks like Jason's in a casket.

Batman (1940) #428 pg 15

This panel implies that Jason and Sheila were buried next to each other, but Sheila's grave is not mentioned elsewhere ever again.

We get no clear indication how soon the funeral is after Jason's death. Alfred does not ask about contacting Dick until the funeral is already underway.

During Hush (Batman (1940) #617), we learn that Jason was buried in this "secret" location. Detective Comics (1937) #790 show that this was in a public cemetery, presumably Gotham Cemetery. The implication of having the body moved in the above panel means Jason may not be buried next to Sheila anymore.

Jason's gravestone is consistently portrayed across multiple comics as an angel on a pedestal that reads 'HERE LIES JASON TODD'. The exception is The New Titans #55, where it's 'JASON TODD REST IN PEACE'

In Batman: Under the Hood #8, we learn that Jason's casket was designed by a man named Giovanni Locaso (who built the caskets for Bruce's parents.) Due to Locaso's arthritis, his son was the one to actually build Jason's coffin. (Lost Days implies that the LoA killed them both off, btw.)

Batman Annual 25 states Bruce placed 3 sensors within the coffin to test for tampering. (I could go on about inconsistencies regarding the presence of Jason's body in his grave (it's completely empty during Hush but Bruce digs up an empty coffin in Under the Hood, etc.), but since that's all post-resurrection I'll save it for another time.)

Sidenote: Jason's injuries

Deadman: Dead Again #2 notes that after the beating "half the bones in his body are broken."

Batman Annual 25 expands on these: Fractured skull (caused a brain bleed that put him in a coma, but this was after he dug himself out), flash burns, shattered sternum, collapsed lung, ~40 other fractures.

It is worth noting that for Batman Annual 25, this is after Superboy Prime's punch revived Jason, with the implication that these are the injuries he would have sustained if he hadn't died. It's also after he crawled out of the grave, walked 12.5 miles, and maybe got hit by a car, so some may have been sustained afterwards (like the wood slivers in his fingers I didn't mention above.)

Jason's legacy (the memorial case)

This post summarizes the memorial case much better than I can ever hope to. I'd like to highlight these panels from Batman (1940) #432:

Bruce's initial reaction is to hide all evidence Jason ever existed.

We also have this panel from Batman (1940) #638, which is among a dream sequence/flashback/hallucination thing so its veracity is a little unclear.

'Alfred was the one who put up the memorial case against Bruce's will' panels are all from post-new 52 so I am ignoring them.

In The New Titans #55, the Batcomputer is linked to the Titan's computer (by Danny Chase). Within the Batcomputer, Jason's whereabouts are marked as Unknown. It takes Dick inputting Bruce's password to see that Jason's actually deceased. This is part of a pattern of obscuring Jason's death.

That fucking Joker diplomatic immunity arc

I hate this part of the comic and I refuse to reread it and refresh myself on the details. However. Things that are worth noting:

The extent of Bruce's investigation is to trick Joker into confirming that he did kill Robin. Again, no mention of Sheila's betrayal here.

Superman did not physically stop Bruce from killing the Joker at any point, and after Joker's attempted gassing and successful bombing of the UN, did let Bruce go after the Joker with the intent of killing him

The point of Bruce's attempted murder in that arc is entirely moot given the number of opportunities for Joker murder & the number of times Bruce has revived the Joker since.

[pocketrocketyuki]

Why do some fans think they can be all 'holyer than thou' when sending hate? Becaue others do the same so through revenge they do it worse back?

The drivers in question are labeled A and B because either fans do it, so they are almost completely interchangable. It also counts for a lot of drivers and their toxic part of fans, not just this A and B pair. Their names don't matter. But this is what im seeing more. (therefor, I am not against either driver, I like them all)

Ive seen certain fans hating a driver "A" (wishing he crashes, having his crying face edited and as a banner) then say they are a "safe place" for their fave "B". You aren't, you're a hate blog since most of the content is hate towards "A" as opposed to love to "B". Their mind is consumed in that hatred yet they say the fans of "A" are the problem?

"A" also has bad fans, who do the same. therefor ALL of their fans are bad apparently. therefor some of "B" fans think its okay to do the same and worse because they didn't start it right? on occasion they do, but they don't talk about it.

If you post hate, to whomever it is, you are just as bad as any of the other posts talking about your fave. Critisism is okay, bias is okay. Hating because "oh they did it too" makes you a product of revenge for someone you don't even know.

This is also not anything against any fans, just the toxic parts who ruin it for every other fan. no matter the driver. Actual fans of a driver make liking a driver a lot better too, and often people just hate drivers because of toxic fans.

[1800titz]

Chapter 3 of Fetish: coming to tumblr (5/12/25) at 2 PM EST

little sneaky

“Hi. I, uh— I have scones. There’s, uh. Three of them, here,” Y/N launches, glancing down at the paper bag and nearly prying it open as she over-explains the unanticipated visit. “They’re not poisoned,” she tacks on, lashes fluttering as her nervous system forges on in overdrive, and the idiotic statement nearly has her gnawing her tongue in half the second the words slip off its textured, wet landing, “…don’t worry.”

With all the energy of a man limned in fatigue, facing a door dash delivery he’d never ordered, Harry blinks.

Y/N is a nice girl. Up until only a few days ago, in fact, Y/N had been just about the picture-perfect definition of Harry’s ideal next-door tenant; relatively reserved and just polite enough to bypass the awkward inconvenience that rode on the recurrent issue of their mail interchanging. There was, of course, the misaligned streak of vigilantism, but at her core, Harry’s sure that Y/N is still a nice girl. 

This theory in mind, the curly-haired brunette genuinely feels a little bad at the level of amusement swelling up within him as he watches her, with no apparent trigger, self-destruct in real time. Although, if he’s being entirely honest, it’s only a faint echo of a thought— all things considered— and is significantly outweighed by his mirth.

There’s a flavor of entertainment— a rare, emotional genre that lives in that exclusive umbra between secondhand embarrassment and morbid fascination, the kind that morally treads the same bandwidth as laughing at a video of someone getting hurt in an unpredictably ridiculous manner. And Harry— still fuzzy around the edges with the kind of creeping, misty stage of somnolence that dozing off midday entails (he’d been in the midst of a particularly important ritual; lying spread-eagled on the couch with one leg kicked up onto the back, half-engrossed in a documentary on luxury trains, eating dry cereal out of the bag when the drowsiness started settling like fog in the hollows of his limbs)— watches Y/N flounder with the same mild fascination he reserves for Youtube compilation videos of cats falling off of countertops. 

Her hair is slung up into a messy, haphazard updo, loose strands climbing out and stretching in soft static wisps to cup her cheekbones, and she’s wearing a short sleeve brown tee with a small Sip Happens logo embroidered over the left corner of her chest. It’s a coffee shop that the existence of vaguely lives in the dells of his memory, based on how often the man passes by it on his runs, and the wardrobe choice implies she’s either an avid punch-card user, or she works there. Tiny, almost imperceptible dry flakes of mascara cling to the soft skin of her under-eyes, like the layer of pigment has crumbled off her lashes over the course of the morning. Her cheeks are flushed as if she’s run a mile, and her grin (if it can even be called that) resembles trembling enamel more than friendliness. It’s cute in a way that probably shouldn’t be, doesn’t intend to be. Oddly endearing.

Apparently she has baked goods— scones, three of them, unpoisoned (which is a mildly relevant detail)— and she feels the need to announce it, so, based on context clues, he can only assume this element is related to her presence at his doorway. He thinks he can deduce what this is supposed to be (apology with a capital A; one that comes wrapped around café-sourced penance), but he hasn’t quite uncurled the warmth from the stretch of skin where his forearm had pressed into the couch for two hours too long, and her dewy pupils are cha-chaing behind her lashes like she wants something from him, so.

“Hey,” Harry murmurs, finally. His voice sounds thick (aggressively all too familiar to the kind of husky sounds she’s heard from the other side of the wall); vocal cords blatantly weathered in sleep, (verve cudgeled in sex, palm probably all sore and stingy from)—

The curly-haired brunette clears his throat, and Y/N simmers in the heat welling up under her skin. 

“Are these—“ Harry nudges with his chin, pointedly into the direction of the paper bag lodged under her clammy fingers, “…are you sharing?” 

“Yes! Yeah. They’re, well,” she holds the bag out to him, her tone laced with only the kind of over-enthused notes nervousness could conduct, “they’re for you, actually.”

Slowly, one of his hands reaches out, and as he locks his fingers over the side of the bag— right beneath where she’s got her own grip clasped over the haphazardly rolled top— the only thought that the young woman can conjure is a hysteria-laden mental-screencap of an image she’d rather not describe out loud.

As if entirely to dismantle Y/N’s sanity, the sheer size of his palms and the way they cradle the bag as she hands it off is enough to make her feel like something vile and wicked is clumsily somersaulting in her stomach. The indisputable fact is this: they are just hands. Long, delicately svelte fingers; colossal, massively, unjustifiably large hands, but hands nonetheless. 

The other irrefutable fact? These are hands Y/N has watched in incredibly obscene action. 

The thing is, by all technicalities, he is so soft, and his current state does no favors to dispute this impression. Right now, sleep-tousled and low-toned, words spilling like honeyed molasses in the languorous husk of his words, the whiplash spills through her like dense ink. Delicate tattoos reside over and under his kneecaps in fine lines, and in every other circumstance, a soft beam chisels dimples into his cheeks as he casually toes the line between real, alive man and fresco escapee. Behind the door somewhere, he’s got a rabbit called Snuggles, and that’s the brutal anomaly, Y/N decides. It is the foundation to which the geometric edges of her brain refuse to bend around. Because there is a fine, fine line in the way his soft, indigo-lacquered hands stretch out to accept an olive branch sown from overly-processed carbohydrates, and the way they move on camera; the way they plant flat, open-palmed blows on warm skin like bruising kisses, the way they trace the pink welts smacked alive in their wake with a delicacy reserved for reverence. They’re strong, rugged, steadfast, mean—

The young woman’s molars squeeze into the smooth, gummy lining along the inside of her cheek. There’s a little vein that runs up along his wrist, and that tendon bracketed by that jut of bone flexes in a manner so heavenly when he pauses to shake his fingers out. The bag, by no surprise, is dwarfed in his grip, and Y/N stands there with his eyes feeling like sticky, heavy inkpools drilling her into place. 

“How thoughtful,” Harry responds, eventually, faux musing, and an undeniable, little smile teases at the corners of his mouth on the latter fragment of the statement, “thank you for the… unpoisoned scones.” 

Sensing the man’s amusement at her awkward introduction, Y/N restrains the vivid sense of embarrassment that buoys to the surface, instead opting to tell him, “Right! Yeah. You’re welcome,” as her face flushes. With the original point of the delivery in mind, the girl clears her throat. “It’s… well, it’s actually, like, an apology-slash-please-don’t-sue-me gift,” she admits, gnawing into her lower lip. 

He leans a shoulder onto the doorframe then, brows shifting (rising) just a smidge, as an almost imperceptible symbolism of intrigue, before they settle back into place. “Is that hyphenated?”

Y/N stares. 

“Apology-slash-please-don’t-sue-me gift.”

“I— maybe?”

For a moment, her neighbor doesn’t say anything. Meaty arms crossed, paper bag hanging out from the hand that’s tucked under inky, smooth muscle, dark, cherubic ringlets coiling around his forehead. He purses his pink mouth like he’s biting back another simper, and then he sighs theatrically. 

“I won’t sue you,” he murmurs, faux-rolling his eyes playfully, as if the notion involves him being the bigger person and shedding a grudge, rather than letting her settle into a rightfully earned consequence. “Do you wanna come in, then? Miss Hyphens. I’ve got tea.”

His teeth— the front two, blocky and just a tad longer than the others— gently lodge over his plump lower lip expectantly. “Or coffee,” he tacks on, casting his gaze briefly onto her workwear. “Whatever goes with… scones.”

[merakiui]

i agree with the assignments but hmmm... i think malleus should be gluttony and idia lust! I feel like the same reasons we can confuse idia for pride can be the reasons why he fits lust. Whereas the reasons malleus can fit greed, is why he's gluttony if that makes sense? Also when it boils down to it, i feel like malleus can be in a sexless relationship based on pure love but i can see idia blowing his lid if he gets continually denied. I also feel like malleus has more self control and even with biological ruts, he can hold back and not "make a mistake" where i feel like idia would downright demand darling to take care of his lust. I know we always joke abt shy subby uwu idia, but ppl forget who he represents and just how depraved he can be. It can get rlly dark w him and lust >_<. But malleus, i see more of like gluttony for life and experiences. I think nothing would make him happier than to be at the center of the table, surrounded by food and drink and company and having a ball of a time. Even as the night weighs on and people are exhausted, malleus wont dismiss them as yet because HE is enjoying himself and having a good time, to the point where he is the only one smiling at the table anymore and everyone else is tortured to be there because of his gluttony for companionship. Mal is a spoiled prince and if he lacked any less, he would be envy, but he has everything. He has a lot of pride too, but not infront of player, and when it boils down to it, Idia has desire, but Malleus really just has a hunger to be accepted and loved.

AAAA ANON, THESE ARE WONDERFUL POINTS!!!!! Very thought-provoking!!! I wanted to separate sex and lust for what I have in mind for the fic (and if I wasn't writing about the seven Overblots then Rollo would immediately take the sin of lust for very obvious reasons and symbolisms. <3). I definitely agree that Malleus and Idia fit lots of different sins and so it can be difficult to assign just one to them (as well as the rest of the cast, but it's a little easier for some of them,,, i.e. Riddle's infamous temper grants him wrath by default. Azul's insatiable avarice (when it comes to his contracts) grants him greed. Etc etc.)

I do think there is a solid difference between desiring something and hungering for it, but then they also pair well together from time to time. Perhaps desire gives way to hunger. To hunger for something is to do so out of desperation (in some cases), and since Malleus is such a lonely soul and has never truly had a connection in which someone looks past the lofty title of heir apparent and future ruler of Briar Valley it makes sense for him to hunger so desperately for that sort of connection. It's why he's unable to simply let Lilia go and why he doesn't want to lose him. He can't accept the finality of an ending or parting, which is why he puts everyone to sleep in hopes that they can all find happiness in their dreams.

I think you can also argue that Idia hungers a little in book six. He desperately doesn't want the job he's set to inherit, and even when he was little he wanted to find a way to escape with Ortho. But due to the circumstances and the curse of his lineage there's only so much that can be done, or so he views it as such.

Perhaps these sins are interchangeable with Malleus and Idia depending on how you frame it. They both desire and hunger for things in their own ways. Idia's guilt and stress overwhelms him and his idea of getting what he's always desired is to reset the world alongside Ortho. Malleus's loneliness and desperation to hold onto the bonds he currently has (his unwillingness to let these go, to accept the fact that everyone will inevitably grow old and that life goes on, his desire and/or hunger to be seen and accepted for himself)......... aaaaa it's great!!!!

Rambling aside, I do love the thought of Idia embodying lust and Malleus embodying gluttony. I'm still debating between the two, but now I'm inclined to lean more towards these assignments after reading your thoughts and dissecting my own. They're very fitting from your perspective!!! >w< also,,,, I like a very dark, messed up Idia, so perhaps pairing him with lust will make for very yummy concepts.